Brafman v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 04/20/12 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Fed.R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. Defendant's 19 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is DENIED as moot. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERTA BRAFMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-01627-MCE-GGH

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY & ITS AFFILIATES,

15
Defendant.
16
17

----oo0oo----

18
Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Nationwide
19
Mutual Insurance Company’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF
20
No. 19), which was filed on December 6, 2011.

This matter was

21
originally set for hearing on January 12, 2012.

Plaintiff failed

22
to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to that
23
Motion as required by Eastern District of California Local Rule
24
230(c), however, and this Court consequently vacated the
25
January 12 hearing date and issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”)
26
to Plaintiff as to why this action should not be dismissed.
27
///
28
1

1

Plaintiff’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a response to the OSC

2

on January 13, 2012, and, on February 1, 2012, this Court issued

3

an Order holding that Counsel’s response was insufficient but

4

declining to penalize Plaintiff for her Counsel’s failures.

5

Accordingly, the Court ordered Counsel to pay sanctions in the

6

amount of $250, but rescheduled the hearing on Defendant’s Motion

7

before this Court to 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 23, 2012.

8

The Court also made very clear that “[f]urther failure to file an

9

opposition or statement of non-opposition in accordance with

10

Eastern District of California Local Rules [would] result in

11

dismissal of this action without further notice to the parties.”

12

Order, 2:5-8.

13

Counsel subsequently filed a Motion to Vacate the Court’s

14

Order and to continue the hearing date to the end of April.

15

Counsel provided additional detail as to why he had not properly

16

opposed Defendant’s Motion prior to the original hearing date as

17

well as information as to why Counsel was unable, before April,

18

to properly address the Motion on behalf of his client.

19

review of Counsel’s Motion to Vacate, the Court did vacate its

20

entry of sanctions against Counsel and continued this matter for

21

hearing on the Court’s regular May 3, 2012, calendar.

22

Upon

Based on this new hearing date, Plaintiff’s opposition or

23

statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s Motion was due on

24

Thursday, April 19, 2012.

25

Despite this Court’s leniency with Plaintiff and her Counsel as

26

described above, and despite the Court’s clear warning in its

27

February 1, 2012, Order, Plaintiff again failed to file any

28

response to the Motion.

See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(c).

2

1

Accordingly, this action is now DISMISSED with prejudice.

2

R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110.

3

to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is DENIED as moot.

4
5

Fed.

Defendant’s Motion

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 20, 2012

6
7
8

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3